COMMENTARY: Fundamental and Nonnegotiable Beliefs

c. 2006 Religion News Service (UNDATED) The Muslim rioting against Danish cartoonists’ satirical renderings of the Prophet Muhammad illustrates why the cultural gulf between fundamentalist Islam and the West is probably unbridgeable _ and perhaps dooms President Bush’s goal of democratizing the Middle East. Western-style democracy in its modern form rests in large part on […]

c. 2006 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) The Muslim rioting against Danish cartoonists’ satirical renderings of the Prophet Muhammad illustrates why the cultural gulf between fundamentalist Islam and the West is probably unbridgeable _ and perhaps dooms President Bush’s goal of democratizing the Middle East.

Western-style democracy in its modern form rests in large part on two fundamental pillars: separation of church and state, and freedom of speech. But the Muslim riots and the burning of Western embassies arise from a diametrically different view of church-state relations and free speech _ the view that there can be no criticism of Islam, that the state is the instrument of Islam and its defender in the temporal world.


On each side, the beliefs are fundamental and not negotiable.

Something’s got to give if the two cultures are ever to reconcile. But that doesn’t seem in the cards _ certainly not at the moment, and probably not any time in the foreseeable future.

Spokesmen for several Middle East Islamic regimes insist that Western Europe outlaw depictions of Muhammad or any material that demeans or criticizes Islam. No Western nation can bow to such clerical fiat and remain faithful to the legacy of the Enlightenment and its reverence for skepticism and free inquiry. Nevertheless, Western governments have been at pains to appease Muslim sensibilities and appeal to Muslim moderate sentiment.

Almost all have urged journalists, politicians, satirists and cultural commentators to cool it _ to show more sensitivity for Muslim feelings, which is not a bad idea. And strong opposition to the Bush administration’s war in Iraq _ including expressions of sympathy and outrage for the thousands of Muslim dead it has produced _ can be found in every major Western nation. Nothing comparable, however, can be found in the Muslim world.

Recall the reaction of some Muslims to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington that took nearly 3,000 American lives. Crowds celebrated in the streets and bazaars of the Middle East and the Muslim ghettoes of Europe. It’s the gold standard for insensitivity.

What’s more stunning, however, is the failure of these same Muslim street crowds and their governments to rage against the al-Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents who have murdered thousands of their co-religionists and beheaded innocent Westerners in Iraq.

Islam doesn’t condone such indiscriminate slaughter, Muslim moderates assure us. And doubtless they are correct. But then, why no popular outrage?

There’s a double standard at work here. For example, some of the same Muslim governments (e.g., Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) that condemn the Danish cartoons allow _ even require, in some cases _ vile depictions of Jews and Christians in print and on television. Imams are allowed to preach hatred of kafirs, or infidels, meaning anyone not a Muslim.


“Killing a kafir for any reason, you can say it is OK,” convicted Imam Abu Hamza al-Masri of London told a gathering at his mosque, “even if there is no reason.” At another session while recruiting for al-Qaida, he counseled that “we like blood and are addicted to it. When they say they love Allah, they must ask themselves how much kafir blood they have shed for Allah.”

At the same time he denounced the West, al-Masri was also part of an exodus that has brought millions of Middle Eastern Muslims to Europe and the West in search of a better life. It’s worth noting that while insisting on freedom of religion for European Muslims, some Islamic regimes don’t reciprocate for visiting Christians. Saudi Arabia, for one, prohibits the practice of Christianity anywhere in the country.

Much of the Muslim rage grows out of American support for Israel. But it’s also difficult not to believe that some is rooted in envy. A thousand years ago, the Islamic civilization of the Middle East was the richest, most intellectually advanced and militarily powerful on Earth. Today it is among the most backward, the product of a twisted construction of Islam that renounces modernity and bans free speech. Political leaders, meanwhile, exploit this rigid Islamism to prevent the rise of any real opposition.

It’s the classic illustration of the danger of mixing religion and politics. It’s also the great gulf that separates the West and the Islamic world, and the most serious hurdle Bush faces in seeking to implant democracy in the Middle East.

(John Farmer is the national political correspondent for The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J.)

KRE/PH END FARMER

Editors: A version of this column is also being transmitted by Newhouse News Service.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!